I literally pointed out where you are wrong multiple times. You did not read all of the links I sent you which is your problem. You should listen to actual climate scientists instead of morons from r/collapse.

​

>I treat the models like they're supposed to be treated, as a good reference and solid idea on how things turn out.

I repeat, you literally made the assumption that warming is going to be worse than what models project when it can go both ways. There is little evidence that climate change is worse than we thought, nor that assessments are downplaying the risks.

You also claimed that models "don't account for permafrost thaw or dynamic vegetation feedback" which is not true because they do account for these things.

"climate panel agreements" Yeah, you totally can not read. I was talking talking about current policies(as in, policies that are already implemented, not pledges made at COPs).

"Also in those articles those scientists talk about how they have LOW CONFIDENCE" You just took words out of context. Point me to the article and paragraph where these words are.